K1803257 301118

UNITED NATIONS

EP UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme

Distr.: General

8 November 2018

Original: English

Ad hoc open-ended expert group

on marine litter and microplastics

Second meeting

Geneva, 3–7 December 2018

Consolidated background paper of the discussion papers

presented at the first meeting of the ad hoc open-ended expert

group on marine litter and microplastics, held in Nairobi from

29 to 31 May 2018

Note by the Secretariat

I. Introduction

1. At its first meeting, held in Nairobi from 29 to 31 May 2018, the ad hoc open-ended expert

group on marine litter and microplastics requested the Secretariat to consolidate the four discussion

papers,1 drawing upon the three information documents,2 to facilitate discussions at its second

meeting, in 2018. The four discussion papers cover the following topics:

(a) Barriers to combating marine litter and microplastics, including challenges related to

resources in developing countries (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/2). This paper provides information on legal,

financial, technological and information barriers and the challenges related to resources in developing

countries;

(b) National, regional and international response options, including actions and innovative

approaches, and voluntary and legally binding governance strategies and approaches

(UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/3). This paper presents information on four non-exclusive categories of

responses: legal and policy, technological, economic, and educational and informational. Examples are

given of each category at the national, regional and international levels, with reference made to those

that could be mutually supportive according to different socioeconomic contexts. The paper also

contains an annex of submissions from member States on existing policies and activities;

(c) Environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of different response options

(UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/4). This paper explores options, both binding and non-binding, to better address

marine litter and microplastics, focusing mainly on international policy responses. Option 1 is to

maintain the status quo, but strengthen the implementation of current efforts; option 2 is to review and

revise existing frameworks to address marine plastic litter and microplastics and add a component to

coordinate industry; and option 3 is to create a new global architecture with a multilayered governance

approach, to be implemented in two phases. The paper also includes a summary of the economic,

social and environmental impacts and costs of marine plastic litter;

1 UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/2, UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/3, UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/4, UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/5. 2 UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/3, UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/4, UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/5.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

2

(d) Feasibility and effectiveness of different response options (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/5).

This paper examines the technical and political feasibility of the three international policy options and

the degree to which each instrument or policy can be successful in reaching the intended goal of

reducing marine litter and plastics.

2. The discussion papers and the present consolidated paper also draw upon the following three

information documents:

(a) Marine Plastic Debris and Microplastics: Global Lessons and Research to Inspire

Action and Guide Policy Change (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/4). This report was mandated by

United Nations Environment Assembly resolution 1/6. It provides a broad overview of the state of

knowledge on the sources, fate and effects of marine plastics and microplastics and sets out a number

of approaches and potential solutions to address this multifaceted problem;

(b) Combating marine plastic litter and microplastics: summary for policymakers – an

assessment of the effectiveness of relevant international, regional and subregional governance

strategies and approaches (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/3). This assessment was prepared pursuant to

United Nations Environment Assembly resolution 2/11. A total of 18 international and 36 regional

instruments were examined on the basis of their objectives of pollution prevention, protection of

biodiversity and species and chemicals and waste management. The conclusion drawn from the

assessment was that the main overarching problem was the absence of an international legal

instrument in which combating marine litter was the primary objective. This had led to an absence of

institutions with mandates to coordinate efforts under different agreements, monitor progress and

establish global targets and standards for marine litter and plastics. As a result, current governance

strategies and approaches were fragmented and did not address issues such as the global extraction of

raw materials, the design and use of plastic polymers or the handling of hazardous additives in final

treatment and disposal processes;

(c) Report on possible options available under the Basel Convention to further address

marine plastic litter and microplastics (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/5). This report, prepared by the

secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, presents possible actions under the

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their

Disposal to further address marine plastic litter and microplastics, for consideration by the Conference

of the Parties to the Basel Convention at its fourteenth meeting, to be held in 2019.

II. Background

3. For the past 60 years, plastics have brought economic, environmental and social advantages.

However, the increase in the use and promotion of disposable products has caused an exponential

increase in the amount of plastic waste generated by both land- and sea-based activities, creating

significant economic, environmental and social issues. Dealing with this problem, as well as

addressing the legacy of waste and plastic pollution, is a daunting task and will require concerted

action at all levels of governance and across multiple geographic scales.

4. At its first two sessions, the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted two resolutions in

which it requested reports on the research conducted so far and the gaps in knowledge on marine

plastic litter and microplastics and on the effectiveness of relevant governance strategies and

approaches. At its third session, the Assembly decided to convene meetings of an ad hoc open-ended

expert group on marine litter and marine plastics to discuss the findings of these reports and further

examine the barriers to and options for combating marine plastic litter and microplastics, especially

from land-based sources. The group was to meet at least once before the fourth session of the

Assembly, in 2019, when it would present its findings (see Assembly resolution 3/7).

5. The reports and discussion papers prepared for the United Nations Environment Assembly and

the expert group underscore the strong moral case for not allowing the oceans to become polluted by

plastics and the importance of taking social attitudes into account when designing strategies and

policies to tackle the problem. Two of the reports highlighted the need to: (a) improve the governance

framework; (b) increase stakeholder engagement; (c) better identify the sources of plastics found in the

marine environment and the ways in which they leak into it; (d) improve solid waste management; (e)

implement appropriate reduction, recovery and restoration measures; (f) deepen understanding of the

impacts of macro-plastics and the uncertainties surrounding microplastics on economic sectors, human

health, trophic flows and sensitive habitats; (g) strengthen and harmonize monitoring methods; (h)

improve administrative and regulatory capacities; and (i) introduce global standards and definitions in

order to streamline approaches and assess the effectiveness of different policies and measures.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

3

6. Also identified in the reports was a wide range of topics on which further research was needed

to support future response options, including: (a) the effectiveness of different types of governance

mechanisms; (b) the properties of plastics found in marine environments, including the factors

controlling degradation; (c) ways to minimize the use of additives; (d) the sources (including those

arising from catastrophic events), presence, transport, fate and pathways of macro-plastics and

microplastics in marine ecosystems; (e) methods for assessing risk and uncertainty; and (f) the

economics of recycling and of demand for plastic and recycled products.

7. The resolutions adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly and the creation of the

expert group represent the latest step in a long journey to tackle the problem of marine litter. Since

1995, when member States adopted the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine

Environment from Land-based Activities, marine litter has been identified as one of the key sources of

marine pollution. It is currently one of the most prominent issues on the international agenda,

reinforced by the adoption of a dedicated Sustainable Development Goal and target on pollution in the

oceans (Goal 14 and target 14.1)3 by the General Assembly, the launch in 2012 of the Global

Partnership on Marine Litter,4 based on the Honolulu Strategy and the Honolulu Commitment, and

other initiatives, such as the Clean Seas campaign.

8. The Global Partnership on Marine Litter is especially important, as it provides a comprehensive

package of contributions from participants aimed at reducing the impacts of marine litter worldwide,

enhancing international cooperation and coordination through the Honolulu Strategy and the Honolulu

Commitment, which is a multi-stakeholder pledging process, promoting knowledge management,

information-sharing and monitoring of progress on the implementation of the Strategy, promoting

resource efficiency and economic development through waste prevention (e.g. through the concept of

reduce, reuse, recycle and redesign) and through the recovery of valuable material and the creation of

energy from waste, increasing awareness of the sources of marine litter and the fate and impacts of

such sources and assessing emerging issues concerning the fate and potential effects of marine litter,

including the uptake of microplastics in the food web and the associated transfer of pollutants and the

effects of marine litter on the conservation and welfare of marine fauna.

9. Over the same period, the pervasive nature of marine litter and plastics began to be addressed in

numerous reports and conferences on oceans, underscoring the fact that microplastics and

macroplastics can now be found in every ocean, on the deep ocean floor and in the most remote parts

of the world. With plastic production projected to increase by up to 40 per cent over the next 10 years,

achieving target 14.1 and other targets to reduce pollution presents a particularly difficult challenge.

10. The expert group recognizes that tackling marine litter and microplastics will require a holistic

approach, involving legal frameworks, incentives, the adoption of waste management plans and many

other actions on the part of national and local governments, robust international cooperation, continued

active engagement by civil society in informing the public, generation of new knowledge, greater

transparency and accountability and the development and scaling up of innovative and successful

solutions.

11. Governments, civil society and businesses have been stepping up their efforts in these areas.

Examples of efforts, such as the adoption in 2018 by the European Commission of a bold strategy on

plastic pollution, entitled “A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy”, and the adoption of

measures to reduce plastic pollution by Governments across the globe, including those of China,

Eritrea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland, are moving in the right direction. However, the expert group sees that the magnitude

of the problem and its transboundary nature will require global, bold and innovative solutions, with

effective actions at the international, national and regional levels. Moreover, for these efforts to

succeed, plastic pollution needs to become an issue of concern to all citizens, through education and

outreach activities that can reach all segments of the population.

III. Barriers, gaps and success factors

12. Four types of barriers are presented in the relevant discussion paper (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/2):

legal barriers (established by, founded upon or generated by law or its absence or lack of

implementation and/or enforcement); financial barriers (characterized by high costs that make a

3 By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities,

including marine debris and nutrient pollution. 4 The three global multi-stakeholder partnerships under the Global Programme of Action are the Global

Partnership on Nutrient Management, the Global Partnership on Marine Litter and the Global Wastewater Initiative.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

4

certain activity difficult to afford or implement; some of those also constitute economic barriers);

technological barriers (include aspects related to the production, manufacturing and design of

products, consumption systems and all aspects of waste collection, management and recovery); and

information barriers (include access to data, research, transparency, and education and awareness).

Non-exhaustive lists of examples of barriers are provided throughout the discussion paper. In addition,

a non-exhaustive list of priority barriers based on the discussions at the first meeting of the ad hoc

open-ended expert group is set out in the annex to the present note, without formal editing.

13. Examples of legal barriers include: (a) the lack of any internationally binding agreement with a

primary objective to reduce marine plastics and microplastics; (b) a lack of measurable targets or

global standards; (c) geographical gaps in the coverage of existing agreements, such as those

concerning the high seas, and gaps in the number of signatories to agreements and their instruments;

(d) poor implementation of policies and enforcement, often resulting from the absence of a single

authority responsible for overseeing the management of marine litter; and (e) an absence of legal and

market-based instruments to reduce consumption of difficult-to-recycle products and to stimulate

industry involvement in finding and implementing solutions.

14. In terms of the wider issue of implementing a circular economy to tackle plastic waste, legal

barriers include: a lack of definitions, clear targets and firm numerical limits in regulations; gaps in

legislation, including on sustainable public procurement; lagging or incomplete implementation or

enforcement of legislation; inconsistent national implementation of international legislation; and

legislation reflecting conflicting values, for example hygiene regulations conflicting with regulations

on food waste.

15. Examples of financial barriers include: (a) fossil fuel subsidies; (b) a chronic lack of funds in

developing countries for waste infrastructure; (c) the absence of the polluter pays principle, especially

in areas such as the high seas, leaving Governments with the burden of clean-up costs; (d) limited

cross-border investments; (e) an absence of global and national markets for end-of-life plastics; and

(f) a failure to internalize or make explicit the costs to human health and the environment.

16. Examples of technological barriers exist for all aspects of the production, manufacturing and

design of products and waste collection and recovery. In the absence of global standards, there has

been a proliferation of widely different approaches to recovery, sorting and reprocessing technologies,

across the informal and formal sectors and between developing and developed countries, preventing

the emergence of financially viable and effective markets. Waste management is often highly

fragmented, with rural areas very often poorly serviced.

17. Regarding upstream processes, there is a clear disconnect between innovation in the design and

production phases and in after-use systems and low prioritization of the reduce, reuse and recycle

waste hierarchy, for example in finding ways to increase the recycled content of products. There are

also gaps in the understanding of the best available technologies and, especially, of ways of dealing

with new alternative materials appearing in the marketplace.

18. While there are multiple barriers relating to information, access to data, research, education and

awareness-raising and transparency in reporting, which hamper decision-making and priority-setting,

they are not sufficient to stop concrete actions from being implemented in the short term in parallel

with longer-term solutions. In other words, there is enough knowledge to act immediately in many

areas. Indeed, over the past five years, there has been an upsurge in major research initiatives that are

delivering new data and evidence at an unprecedented rate, for example on the extent of macroplastics

and microplastics in the marine environment. However, significant efforts are still needed to close the

knowledge gaps on the levels and sources of marine litter and microplastics and their accumulation in

organisms and associated impacts on human health and the functioning of ecosystems. These gaps

have contributed, in part, to the general lack of recognition in society and international policy of the

potential risks to human health of plastics, especially micro- and nano-sized particles. In addition,

without a greater understanding of the extent of plastics in the marine environment that could result

from improved monitoring, and in the absence of global standards and greater transparency, economic

consequences include lost tax revenue as trade in plastic waste remains an illegal revenue source.

19. The challenges for developing countries in dealing with marine litter and plastic waste are even

greater. These countries are often recipients of plastic products that have been designed elsewhere,

with little or no regard for the prevailing conditions in the receiving countries, such as poor

infrastructure and limited enforcement of environmental regulations. Rapid urban expansion,

especially in the developing world, has also led to many areas being poorly serviced in terms of solid

waste management, leading to an increase in illegal dumping sites. These sites are often close to rivers,

which increases the risk of waste ending up in the aquatic and marine environments. As waste

management is often the domain of the informal sector, individual pickers selectively remove

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

5

high-value plastics and leave behind the low-value, low-weight plastics. Overall, the list of barriers in

developing countries is long, and includes inadequate financing, legal and regulatory deficits, low

administrative capacities, lack of public awareness of good sanitary practices, and limited

enforcement.

20. Small island developing States are particularly vulnerable to marine litter and plastics. They

have limited on-island production and waste management infrastructure, such as port reception

facilities, which, combined with the complication of geographical distance from other waste collection

centres, means that they are unlikely to attract private investment. Their proximity to the ocean and

exposure to natural hazards also increase the risk of near-shore and ocean contamination.

21. Even in cases where there is a robust legally binding agreement in place, barriers remain. For

example, key challenges remain for the Mediterranean Action Plan under the Convention for the

Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona

Convention) (see UNEP(DEPI)/MED WG.444/Inf.12), including a lack of financial and other

resources, measures to support circular economy strategies, knowledge about the extent of marine

plastics in the Mediterranean Sea, due in part to very patchy monitoring and assessment systems,

availability of or access to data produced by Governments, and coordination, in particular with the

private sector and industry.

22. The expert group agreed upon the need to prioritize ways to address these barriers through

short-, medium- and long-term actions and to identify key success factors. They saw an urgent need to

remove barriers through upstream solutions, including by improving designs and product labelling,

addressing fossil fuel subsidies and working with the private sector, to reorient production processes

so that they reflect the reduce, reuse and recycle aspects of the circular economy.

23. With plastic production set to rise over the next decade, even the positive developments that are

happening on the ground may be overshadowed unless there is a change in thinking about waste

prevention among industry actors and individual consumers, coupled with actions at the global level.

Thus, the identification of success factors that are likely to support national and international efforts

will be crucial in establishing a strong basis for tackling marine litter and plastics. Examples of success

factors include: (a) adopting an integrated, holistic approach to waste management; (b) embedding the

reduce, reuse and recycle concept into all aspects of the economy, including the concept of producer

responsibility; (c) using a source-to-sea approach, given the importance of rivers as conduits for the

delivery of plastic litter to the marine environment; (d) building on successful regional and global

mechanisms, such as the Regional Seas Programme and the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam

Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides

in International Trade, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (see

UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/5), the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management and the

Global Programme of Action; and (e) creating a global architecture that includes new, voluntary, as

well as potentially binding, legal instruments, in a multilayered governance approach, that could be

extended to other institutions, such as the World Trade Organization and the World Tourism

Organization, and industry initiatives, such as the Global Plastics Alliance, which has undertaken over

350 projects in 40 countries to address marine debris, Circulate Capital, which is an investment

management firm dedicated to financing companies, projects and infrastructure that prevent ocean

plastic, supported by the World Plastics Council and other entities in the plastics industry, and

Operation Clean Sweep. Success factors such as these could help to ensure the effectiveness of local

and national solutions, including financial incentives, the best available technologies and

awareness-raising campaigns, and ensure greater leverage and impact.

IV. National, regional and international response options

24. Four categories of response options are presented in the relevant discussion paper

(UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/3) as a way to classify actions at the national, regional and international levels:

legal and policy responses, technological responses, economic responses and educational and

informational responses. Some options are mutually beneficial across the three levels, reinforcing the

concept of adopting a holistic approach as a key success factor.

A. National response options

25. At the national level, two major types of legal and policy responses exist: framework laws and

actions targeting specific products.5 Overarching framework laws, such as the Law for the Promotion

of Marine Litter Disposal of Japan, enacted in 2009, and the Marine Environment Management Act of

5 United Nations Environment Programme, Marine Litter Legislation: A Toolkit for Policymakers (Nairobi, 2016).

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

6

the Republic of Korea, also enacted in 2009, mandate subnational governments to develop plans and

manage responsibilities regarding marine litter. Other countries, such as Indonesia, have developed

national action plans that contain reduction targets and dates. National plans are more likely to succeed

when they include priority actions, baseline values and reduction targets and, when possible, are

supported by monitoring and assessment programmes. These plans can then be directly linked to

measuring progress on achieving Sustainable Development Goal targets, especially target 14.1.

26. There are many national laws governing the production and use of land-based materials that

end up as marine litter. These include import bans on items such as plastic bags, in Kenya and

Rwanda, and plastic waste, in China, and laws prohibiting, regulating and disincentivizing the

manufacturing or retailing of specific goods, such as those banning single-use or “biodegradable”

plastic bags and expanded polystyrene. Other countries have made it a requirement to adopt best

management practices, for example in the manufacturing, handling and transport of nurdles and

microbeads in personal care products,6 or have prohibited smoking on beaches. Extended producer

responsibility is also an important policy approach, in which producers accept significant

responsibility for the treatment or disposal of products.

27. The success of the ban on plastic bags in Kenya is due to a number of reasons, including the

constitutional right of Kenyans to a clean and healthy environment and the application of the

precautionary principle in ensuring that right; political support at the presidential level; regional

examples of best practices, such as in Rwanda; the fulfilment of national responsibilities under the

2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; support from the global community, including

international leaders and partners; a growing public awareness of the environmental threats posed by

plastics; and significant additional benefits, such as improved drainage during the heavy rains,

entrepreneurial opportunities to develop innovative packaging solutions and the revival of the cotton

sector in the manufacturing of packaging alternatives. Certain challenges remain concerning the

differential impact of high fines on people of low income, the need for more data on the impacts of the

ban to enable evaluation of progress made, and cross-border movement of plastic bags from countries

that have not yet implemented a ban.

28. Member States have also put in place a range of binding legislative measures to improve waste

management. These generally fall into one of four categories of disposal: (a) land-based waste

disposal, for example in landfills; (b) land-based waste clean-up, such as community programmes to

clean up beaches and public programmes such as the one in the Republic of Korea that provides funds

for fisherfolk to return their litter to port; (c) the disposal of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing

gear; and (d) the disposal of litter from ships. New Zealand has put further restrictions on landfill

locations to ensure that they are sited away from the coast. As disasters and natural hazards can also

result in a large increase in marine litter, many Governments have put in place disaster debris

management plans to help to prevent litter from entering waterways and to organize its removal

afterwards. Environmentally sound incineration continues to play an important part in waste disposal.

For example, in Japan, funding is made available for facilities to use waste-to-energy methods.

29. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by

the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, largely covers the management of litter from ships; it deals with

vessel-borne waste and disposal and has been adopted in the national legislation of many countries,

some of which have taken a very stringent view on the type of waste that must be removed in ports

and disposed of properly. Regarding plastics associated with fishing gear, Saint Kitts and Nevis

prohibits any use of plastics, while other countries aim to minimize losses of such gear at sea. Some

countries have adopted legislation against dumping that regulates the creation of artificial reefs from

waste materials, as these may affect the functioning of ecosystems.

30. Within the national context, there are also non-binding, voluntary measures that supplement

legislative measures, such as voluntary efforts taken in the private sector in Japan, Mexico, Portugal,

Spain and the United States of America to manage the handling of nurdles, the voluntary phasing out

of microbeads in cosmetics and a range of voluntary certification and labelling schemes.

31. Today, there are many technological solutions being developed around the world. One key area

is the redesign of plastic items and packaging: in its report entitled Valuing Plastic: The Business Case

for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry, the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimated that the negative externalities of packaging cost

$40 billion each year. As a result, the development of alternative, degradable materials has been a

6 Bangladesh has banned the manufacturing of all polythene shopping bags, China has prohibited the production,

sale and use of ultrathin bags, California has banned the manufacturing of nurdles and Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America have banned the use of microbeads in personal care products.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

7

clear priority for many Governments and industry. Technological improvements in waste

management, such as mobile units, improved recycling of polymers, the capture of microfibres in

washing machines and microbeads in wastewater systems, appropriately scaled waste-to-energy

systems, the conversion of dump sites to sanitary landfills and the removal of litter using floating

booms, can also enhance the effectiveness of existing national facilities. Improving the technologies

for monitoring the extent of marine litter and plastics is also an important response and is vital to

ensuring the effectiveness of different policies.

32. Economic responses of Governments include establishing incentives, taxes, levies and fines to

reduce the production and consumption of plastics and take-back and deposit-refund schemes for

plastic items such as bottles. Coupled with these are educational and awareness-raising initiatives

launched in society at large and within specific industries. For example, in Germany, the plastic

manufacturers and the chemicals industry have launched the Zero Pellet Loss initiative to raise

employee awareness on ways to manage pellets properly, and Operation Clean Sweep encourages

industry actors to prevent the accidental loss of plastic resin in the environment. Activities such as

cleaning up beaches, engaging citizens in the monitoring of beach litter, rescuing marine organisms

affected by litter, adopting beaches and organizing cultural events, holding information-sharing

workshops and conducting national campaigns to support, for example, the Clean Seas campaign and

mobile applications such as Beat the Microbead have been used to raise awareness and are now an

integral part of many national action plans.

B. Regional response options

33. At the regional level, cooperation is crucial to addressing the problems of marine litter and

microplastics, as no single country can manage the oceans in isolation. Regional approaches also allow

for concerted actions to be taken in a way that matches the specific environmental and socioeconomic

context. With the establishment of the Regional Seas Programme in 1974, UNEP adopted a regional

approach to addressing the environmental degradation of the marine and coastal environments. More

than 143 member States participate in one or more of the 18 regional seas programmes, 14 of which

are underpinned by legally binding conventions. Nine regions have adopted protocols specific to

land-based activities, seven already have action plans on marine litter and six more are developing

them.

34. Other regional examples that support the conservation of the marine environment include the

work of regional fisheries bodies and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which promotes

measures to prevent the loss of fishing gear; regional policy coordination measures such as the

Directive establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental

Policy of the European Union, which is a legally binding instrument, and the European strategy for

plastics in a circular economy; and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) conference

on reducing marine debris in the ASEAN region, which issued recommendations on a regional

agreement for the sustainable management of debris pollution. The Group of Seven and the Group of

20 also developed action plans to combat marine litter in order to provide valuable mechanisms for

taking action, raising awareness, establishing cooperation on technical matters and engaging multiple

sectors of society.

35. Regional technical and economic responses follow along similar lines, with, for example, the

Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme of the European Union that funds work on marine

litter and the development by the secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme of

regional projects to improve solid waste management in the Pacific islands. In terms of regional

educational and informational responses, UNEP has supported the creation of regional nodes of the

Global Partnership on Marine Litter in the North-West Pacific, the wider Caribbean, the

Mediterranean and the Pacific regions in order to strengthen interregional and regional cooperation

and awareness-raising efforts. Other examples include new legislation being proposed by the European

Union to reduce the use of the 10 types of single-use plastics most commonly found on beaches and in

fishing gear, representing 70 per cent of the marine litter in Europe, by promoting less harmful

alternatives when available, better informing consumers, using extended producer responsibility

schemes when no alternatives exist and ensuring that certain products enter the existing circuits for

separating, collecting and recycling waste.

C. International response options

36. When considering responses at the international level, even though coastal communities and

small island States suffer visible impacts, all member States, including landlocked countries, are

affected by and contribute to marine litter and microplastics. The three international policy response

options presented in the assessment of the effectiveness of relevant international, regional and

subregional governance strategies and approaches (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/3) are discussed below.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

8

37. With regard to legal and policy response options, binding measures taken under option 1, which

is to maintain the status quo, would involve strengthening the implementation of existing instruments,

such as the regional seas programmes and other relevant multilateral environmental agreements.7 The

Assembly of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recently recognized that marine

plastic pollution requires further consideration in order to significantly reduce marine pollution of all

kinds by 2025, and the Marine Environment Protection Committee of IMO has invited member States

and others to submit concrete proposals for the development of an action plan on litter resulting from

shipping. Similarly, the governing bodies of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by

Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and its 1996 Protocol will discuss, in November 2018, a

statement of concern regarding the disposal of fibreglass-reinforced plastic vessels at sea. Option 2 is

aimed at strengthening existing instruments to specifically address marine litter and microplastics,

amending the mandate of an existing international body to coordinate the efforts of various institutions

and establishing a voluntary framework to increase industry participation in developing non-binding

measures to reduce marine litter. Option 3 is the establishment of a new global binding mechanism,

without duplicating efforts under existing instruments, which could either address the general issue of

marine litter and plastics or be highly focused on specific areas such as microplastics or labelling and

certification.

38. Voluntary measures can also be included in all three options. Relevant examples include the

Global Partnership on Marine Litter, a multi-stakeholder partnership that engages more than 150

partners to tackle sources and sinks, the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, established to tackle lost and

abandoned fishing gear, and the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine

Environment from Land-based Activities, an intergovernmental mechanism that brings together

diverse stakeholders to address marine pollution in an integrated manner, focusing on nine categories

of sources, including marine litter.

39. During the meeting of the expert group, a combined three-pillar approach was explored,

drawing on the options in the background paper (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/3). The first pillar represents a

strengthened cooperation under the regional seas conventions; the second focuses on the establishment

of a platform for knowledge-sharing and cooperation among industry actors, relevant authorities,

non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders, as well as a forum for voluntary and

coordinated commitments by member States; and the third concerns an amendment to the Basel

Convention to comprehensively address plastic waste as a matter of concern. It was agreed that the

three-pillar proposal, in addition to the input presented at the meeting on other types of options, should

be kept under consideration during the next stage to allow a range of options to be developed, as

defined in the mandate of the expert group.

40. Technological and economic response options covering enhanced international coordination,

collaboration on research and development to better understand the pathways and impacts of marine

litter and potential solutions, and technological innovation, for example the Virtuous Circle project,

together with official development assistance to improve waste management and recycling facilities in

developing countries, will be necessary features of any new global mechanism. The Government of

Norway has taken the initiative to establish a multi-donor trust fund in the World Bank to improve

waste management and prevent marine litter, inviting other donors to add to their initial contribution.

Other suggestions for a global funding mechanism to support these features included using tax levies

on plastic products.

41. Educational and global awareness-raising activities will play a crucial role in any option.

Campaigns such as the five-year global Clean Seas project launched by UNEP, marine organizations,

such as ocean aquariums and museums, and platforms such as the Global Partnership on Marine Litter

will all play an important part in developing a global outreach response, along with conferences and

events on the subject, such as the International Marine Debris Conference.

7 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions

of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and

Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks; the Convention on the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and its 1996 Protocol; annex V to the International

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Convention on

the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals; the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic

Pollutants; the Basel Convention; and regional instruments, including the regional seas conventions and action plans.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

9

V. Environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of the

different international policy response options

42. The discussion paper on the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of different

response options (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/4), based on the assessment of the effectiveness of the

relevant governance strategies and approaches (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/3), focuses mainly on the

three international policy options discussed above. While it was not feasible to carry out a detailed

analysis that would provide monetary figures for the three options, it was possible to identify examples

of costs and benefits at the national, regional and international levels of scaling up or down such

efforts.

43. One major challenge in estimating the costs and benefits of marine plastics is the extent of the

institutional and knowledge gaps that remain. At the regional and global levels, there are gaps in: (a)

the establishment of mandates to manage upstream interventions; (b) geographical scope; (c) the

recognition of risks to human health; (d) solid waste management and wastewater treatment; (e) the

regulation of dumping; (f) the management of microplastics; (g) the regulation of industry pollution

and emissions ending up in waterbodies; and (h) the adoption of due diligence within the plastics

industry.

44. As regards knowledge gaps, most of the relevant literature is about the prevalence and forms of

marine litter, but little is written about the magnitude of the costs that marine plastics impose on

society, such as the social impact of the damage to human welfare caused by marine plastic litter.

Comprehensive analyses and measurements of such impacts need to be conducted using economic and

econometric models; however, historically, most policy interventions have been examined using a

technical or engineering approach, without the application of such models, without an analysis of the

costs and benefits of alternative actions, and without taking into account the benefits arising from

employment opportunities, new investments in enterprise, improvements in quality of life or the

protection of ecosystems.

45. All these issues make it difficult to calculate monetary figures for the different options. For

example, the calculated cost of manufacturing biodegradable alternatives to plastic bags is often higher

than the cost of the original bag; however, these calculations rarely include the additional costs to the

environment or human health. Better life-cycle assessments are needed, in particular for products and

polymers, with a view to the evaluation of recycled and alternative materials and product redesign.

46. Examples of costs and benefits relating to future actions that can be scaled up from the national

to the regional and international levels are presented in the discussion paper on the costs and benefits

of the different response options. Some of the most common impacts for which environmental costs

can be estimated include entanglements and ghost fishing, ingestion (intestinal blockage, malnutrition

and poisoning) by fish and other marine animals, blockage of filter feeding mechanisms of whales and

other marine animals from small particulate (neustonic) plastic debris, physical damage and

smothering of reefs, seagrass, mangroves and other habitats, litter becoming vectors for marine pests,

including invasive species, and reduced resilience to climate change due to cumulative impacts.

47. Social costs can be estimated for issues such as the loss of aesthetics or visual amenity of a

landscape, the loss of indigenous values, antagonism against perceived polluters, perceived or actual

risks to safety, including from additives and microplastics, food security, and perceived or actual risks

to human health, including from microplastics and exposure to hazardous chemicals in containers

washed ashore.

48. Economic costs for which estimates can be derived include abatement costs shouldered by local

governments, the cost to tourism (e.g. due to the loss of visual amenity and inability to use beaches),

the cost to vessel operators (e.g. resulting from downtime and damage to the vessel due to

entanglements), the cost to fishery and aquaculture operations due to damage or entanglements and the

cost of clean-ups, animal rescue operations, and recovery and disposal. Public safety costs include

navigational hazards (the loss of power or ability to steer at sea, which can be life-threatening),

hazards to swimmers and divers (entanglements), cuts, abrasions and injuries resulting from punctures

and the leaching of poisonous chemicals.

49. These costs can also be analysed according to categories such as costs incurred through

preventative measures, costs resulting from direct damage, costs incurred through remedial measures

(e.g. clean-up after a natural disaster) and indirect costs (e.g. the loss of ecosystem services). Direct

economic costs of marine litter refer to the additional expenditure incurred by different economic

sectors. Indirect economic costs refer to the negative impacts of marine litter on the marine

environment, human health and productivity across different marine sectors and, ultimately, the gross

domestic product of each country. Estimates of the damage caused by marine litter and the resulting

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

10

costs are generally very high. Given that much of the damage and resulting cost is avoidable, such

estimates can help to point out the seriousness of the problem to Governments and the need for

preventative measures.

50. The valuation of the costs resulting from such damage is usually based on the impacts on

marine industry users; however, these users represent only a small fraction of the marine

economy. In its report Valuing Plastic: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing

Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry, UNEP estimated that the damage to the value of

marine environments globally was at least $8 billion per year. In its report entitled “Assessing the

economic benefits of reductions in marine debris: a pilot study of beach recreation in Orange

County, California”, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States

estimated that reducing marine debris, even by 25 per cent, at beaches in and near Orange County

could save residents roughly $32 million during three months in the summer by not having to

travel longer distances to other beaches. Similarly, it has been estimated that communities in

California, Oregon and Washington, D.C., spent around half a billion dollars per year to control

litter and reduce marine debris.8

51. Some efforts have also been made to estimate the environmental costs of the production of

plastics. According to one study, the “environmental cost to society of consumer plastic products and

packaging was over $139 billion in 2015, equivalent to almost 20 per cent of plastic manufacturing

sector revenue, and is expected to grow (to $209 billion by 2025) if current trends persist”.9

52. The potential positive outcomes of prevention include savings to the economy, achieved

through reductions in the cost of resources being consumed and in the cost of remediation, and the

benefits of a healthy environment and ecosystem. Prevention should thus be included as a main goal

when establishing actions under the three response options.

53. The economic, social and environmental costs and benefits are listed for each option in an

annex to the relevant discussion paper. For option 1, which is to maintain the status quo, international

policy actions include strengthening the implementation of existing mechanisms and monitoring

developments under the Basel Convention. Costs include increased staffing and workloads related to

meetings and potential conflicts linked to enforcement. Benefits include increased awareness of

different multilateral instruments and possible minor environmental improvements.

54. For option 2, which is to review and revise existing frameworks and add a component to

coordinate industry, international policy actions include: (a) expanding the mandate of an existing

international body to coordinate the efforts of various institutions dealing with marine litter, such as

the those governing the Basel Convention and administering the regional seas programmes, and

promoting and developing the Sustainable Development Goals; (b) strengthening and adding measures

specific to marine plastic litter and microplastics in regional seas programmes and other applicable

instruments; (c) revising, for example, the Honolulu Strategy to encourage improved implementation

at the national level and reach an agreement on indicators of success; and (d) adopting a voluntary

agreement to standardize global, regional and national reporting on the production, consumption and

final treatment of plastics and additives, introduce voluntary national reduction targets and develop

and improve global industry guidelines (e.g. on the management of polymers and additives or the

adoption of global labelling and certification schemes). Examples of costs include the need for

increased human resources, meetings and negotiations and their carbon footprint, possible antagonism

between countries and industries and the costs of monitoring and evaluating new agreements.

Examples of benefits include the savings gained from a more coordinated approach, increased

awareness and a reduction in the impacts of plastics on the marine environment.

55. The economic costs of option 3, which is to establish a new international and legally binding

architecture, are broadly related to the international negotiation process and the establishment and

operation of a fully-fledged secretariat. The main social costs are the increased burden on

Governments in undertaking the negotiations and possible conflicts among stakeholders, Governments

and businesses, while the environmental costs are the carbon emissions associated with the

organization of meetings to conduct negotiations and the potential drop in funding of measures already

in place, which may shift attention away from existing responsibilities. In developing voluntary and,

eventually, binding measures, various other costs are likely to emerge, for example: (a) increased costs

8 Barbara H. Stickel, Andrew Jahn and Bill Kier, “The cost to West Coast communities of dealing with trash,

reducing marine debris”, paper prepared by Kier Associates for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, September 2012. 9 Rick Lord, Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement (Trucost, 2016).

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

11

for Governments and industry linked to new reporting requirements and to the monitoring and

development of and compliance with global standards and new and amended legislation; (b) the

administration of labelling and certification schemes; (c) increased regulation and monitoring of trade

in non-hazardous plastic waste; (d) the administration of and contributions to a global funding

mechanism to assist remediation in countries, in particular small island developing States, where

marine plastic litter accumulates; and (e) the social costs of the perceived inconvenience of tougher

environmental legislation, such as bans on disposable plastic bags and levies on plastic products.

Benefits are likely to include fewer abatement measures over the long term, with significant industry

savings, reduced costs resulting from damage and increased savings due to a more efficient use of

plastics, support for Governments and industry in improving transparency and disclosure in achieving

reduction targets, reduced harmful impacts of marine plastics and the knowledge that future

generations will have access to a healthy environment, and a reduction in the harmful effects of marine

plastics on marine ecosystems and an increase in resilience.

56. In establishing the costs and benefits of international policy response options, such as those

listed above, more clarity is needed on the efficacy of existing partnerships and initiatives, the cost of

inaction and the benefits of preventing and avoiding the costs associated with the social and

environmental impacts of marine litter and plastics, the benefits of using a life-cycle approach across

the design and production chain and the economic, social and environmental costs of improving the

governance framework to combat marine litter and microplastics. The development of standardized

methodologies and approaches to examine each of these issues would make it possible to compare

different actions and options and evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness.

VI. Feasibility and effectiveness of the different international policy

response options

57. The analysis presented in the relevant discussion paper (UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/5) of the

feasibility and effectiveness of the three international policy response options is based on the costs,

technical and political feasibility and the degree to which each instrument or policy can be successful

in reaching the intended goal of reducing marine litter and even building a society in which there is no

plastic waste. Ideally, this would be based on a standardized quantitative measure. However, in the

absence of such an indicator and of data to measure effectiveness, proxy indicators such as reductions

in the production and consumption of certain types of products that are commonly found in the

environment can be used. More details can be found in the assessment report

(UNEP/AHEG/2018/1/INF/3).

58. In summary, option 1 is, by definition, technically and politically feasible. Strengthening the

implementation of existing instruments would require new compliance and reporting mechanisms, but

could help to improve their overall effectiveness. However, it would be difficult to address the issue of

marine litter from a holistic perspective, as not all of the instruments currently address the entire life

cycle of products. Given that none of these steps would necessarily halt or reduce the increase in

marine litter, option 1 was not seen to be effective overall.

59. While option 2 is both technically and politically feasible, the political feasibility of the

voluntary agreement would depend on the precise nature of the commitments and targets and

sufficient engagement with stakeholders, without which the effectiveness of the option would be

undermined. If the mandate of an international body were expanded, negotiations would be involved,

and if a voluntary agreement were developed, countries would need technical assistance with setting

voluntary national reduction targets and monitoring and reporting. Overall, option 2 could be effective

if strengthened or additional measures were implemented, as it builds on synergies and increases

coordination.

60. Option 3 is technically feasible, but, depending on the different modalities adopted, it would

need political support from member States and could be affected by the economic impacts of the

instruments and the severity of its compliance mechanism. It would involve option 2 being launched

as a first phase, to take stock, develop voluntary measures and gather experiences and data, followed

by, or in parallel with, a second phase to support the development and implementation of a legally

binding architecture, procedures and measures. Option 3 is likely to be effective, as it allows for an

international coordinated approach; however, it is contingent upon suitable implementing and

compliance mechanisms.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

12

VII. Conclusions

61. While the expert group recognized that there was sufficient information to take action on

marine litter and plastics, it was agreed that a robust analysis of different response options was

required, based on: (a) a deeper understanding of the gaps in existing mechanisms and agreements,

including of their coverage and the mechanisms or agreements that are working well; (b) a greater

understanding of the challenges faced by existing programmes and institutions; (c) an exploration of

the ways in which existing platforms such as the Global Programme of Action and the Global

Partnership on Marine Litter might be extended or whether a new structure is needed; (d) clarification

on the need for global coordination; (e) identification of opportunities for short-term, as well as

medium- and longer-term, actions; and (f) an analysis of ways in which improved data from the

monitoring of marine litter and plastics could be used to inform upstream processes and interventions.

The expert group considered that addressing these issues would help to bring it closer to finding

solutions for the overall goal of eliminating the discharge of litter and plastics into the oceans over the

long term, as reflected in United Nations Environment Assembly resolution 3/7.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

13

Annex

Major barriers and response options for combating marine litter

and microplastics

1. Major barriers occur in four areas: legal (any impediment or barrier established by, founded

upon or generated by law, the absence of it or the lack of its implementation and/or enforcement);

financial (when high costs or lack of markets make a certain activity difficult to afford or implement;);

technological (relating to the production, manufacturing and design of products, consumption systems

and all aspects of waste collection, management and recovery); and information (access to data,

research, transparency, and education and awareness).

2. The meeting suggested that it would be useful to have a priority barriers extracted from the

extensive list of barriers presented to the first meeting. The secretariat therefore prepared the list below

as a non-exhaustive list of priority barriers based on the discussions that took place in Geneva. This

list will be open for discussions during the second meeting.

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

14

Area Barrier National Regional International

Legal Lack of harmonized standards or an

international legally binding

agreement on the reduction of

marine litter and microplastics

including contamination

regulations for foods and

ecosystems, or measurable targets

or timelines at the global level for

the reduction of marine pollution,

particularly from land-based

sources

Existing legislative instruments

for disposal covering: i) land-

based waste disposal, for

example landfills; ii) land-based

waste clean-up schemes; iii)

abandoned, lost and discarded

fishing gear; and iv) litter from

ships.

Develop framework law which

covers the whole life cycle of

plastics including their use in

products with design targets,

management and multiple-Rs

and safe disposal from land-

based and sea-based sources

such as abandoned, lost and

discarded fishing gear; and litter

from ships.

Co-operate regionally to align with

relevant action plans e.g. G7 and G20

on combatting marine litter, raising

awareness, establishing co-operation on

technical matters and engaging

multiple sectors of society;

Option 3 A legally binding architecture

to be implemented in two phases:

Phase I: Extend existing and new

voluntary measures, including

introduction of self-determined

national reduction targets;

development/improvement of industry

led design standards that promote

recovery and recycling.

Phase II: Develop a binding agreement

to include:

ratification/accession procedures to

confirm commitment by member

states;

an obligation to set self-determined

national reduction targets;

develop and maintain national

inventories on production,

consumption, final treatment and trade

of plastics and additives.

fixed timelines to review & improve

national reduction targets;

a duty to cooperate to determine global

technical standards to ensure basic

level environmental and quality

controls by industry.

a duty to cooperate to determine global

industry standards for reporting,

labeling & certification

measures to regulate international trade

in non-hazardous plastic waste;

compliance measures, monitoring and

reporting;

legal basis set for mechanisms for

liability & compensation, funding and

information sharing; and

consideration of the needs of

developing countries and regional

differences (e.g. exemptions and

extensions).

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

15

Area Barrier National Regional International

Limited use of legal instruments or

incentives to reduce unnecessary,

difficult to recycle plastics or

shedding of microplastics during

use, such as due diligence, “polluter

pays” principle, Extended Producer

Responsibility schemes, or any

form of global liability and

compensation mechanism

Identify and ban undesirable and

unnecessary products and

hazardous chemicals in

production and recycling

processes (Reduce).

All plastic types are collected,

sorted and recycled irrespective

of ‘value.’

Regional co-operation on legal

instruments and incentives to ban

undesirable and unnecessary products

e.g. the European Union’s legislative

action to reduce the use of the ten most

commonly found single-use plastics on

beaches and in fishing gear,

representing 70 percent by count, by

promoting less harmful alternatives

when available, better informing

consumers, using extended producer

responsibility schemes when no

alternatives exists, and ensuring that

certain products enter the existing

separation and collection and recycling

circuit.

Support regional compliance with

sustainable global recycling standards.

Participate in establishment of global

standards for waste stream definitions,

criteria and labeling to assist in

purifying waste streams to increase

their value

Establishment of sustainable global

recycling standards

Global ban on undesirable and

unnecessary products and hazardous

chemicals in production and recycling

processes

Establishing global standards for waste

stream definitions, criteria and labeling

to assist in purifying waste streams to

increase their value and limit harmful

exposures and impacts

Lack of targets and effective

compliance and enforcement

mechanisms for existing standards

and regulations as well as a

fragmented approach at regional

levels.

Effective EIA, SEA processes in

place

Set national collection targets,

landfill reduction targets,

recycling targets, and post-

consumer content targets for

different types of plastics

Identify enforcement

mechanisms and engage in

regional activities on improving

compliance

Co-ordination under:

(i) Regional Seas Programme: support

adoption of legally binding protocols

on land-and based and marine sources

of litter and plastics;

(ii) Regional Fisheries Bodies: adopting

and implementation of Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing;

(iii) Regional policy co-ordination to

achieve regional targets e.g. zero

leakage to ocean from all sources;

(iv) European Union’s Marine Strategy

Framework Directive; European

Strategy for Plastics in a Circular

Economy;

(v) Association of Southeast Asian

Nations (ASEAN) Conference on

Reducing Marine Debris in the ASEAN

Region

Core element of option 3

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

16

Area Barrier National Regional International

Participate in regional improving

classification of hazardous components

of plastic production and treatment

under the Basel, Stockholm and

Rotterdam Conventions, and ensure

hazardous substances are eliminated

from lifecycle of plastics, highly

regulated where not possible to

eliminate.

Establish regional co-operation on

design and 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle).

Lack of single authority or body

responsible for overseeing the

management of waste and marine

litter prevention and enforcement

of binding instruments, particularly

in areas beyond national

jurisdiction

Establish dedicated government

body to oversee solid waste

management policies,

implementation and monitoring.

Strengthen the role of regional bodies

to deal with areas beyond national

jurisdiction

Options 2 and 3 both have the potential

to establish a single authority to take

forward this element especially in

relation to areas beyond national jurisdiction

Widespread absence of policies to

incentives and transform markets

by stimulating supply of recyclable

plastics and products with recycled

content,

Establish industrial policies and

approaches to design for

products with recycled content

Create regional markets for products

with recycled content

Establish new international

arrangements on green design with

recognized levels of recycled material content

Financial Lack of funds and implementation

of market-based instruments and

tax incentives to stimulate

investment for local infrastructure

for collection, treatment or disposal

and environmentally and

financially sustainable end-of-life treatment of plastic waste

Identify new sources of funding

and implement economic

incentives at national level to

promote 6Rs, focusing on

reduction of unnecessary and

undesirable products, incentives

to design products for reuse, the

infrastructure, collection, sorting

required, diversion from landfill,

and sustainable recycling

practices.

Establish new regional funds to

incentivize investment in infrastructure,

especially where shared facilities in

neighbouring states make sense

Establish new sources of international

funding to encourage design of

products using recycled materials and

to enable technology transfer to

increase extent of sustainable recycling

facilities

Continued use of fossil fuel

subsidies and a lack of sustainable

and profitable end-markets for all

end-of-life plastics, allowing new

plastic to remain a cheaper source

of raw material compared to

recycled plastic

Removal of perverse incentives

allowing new plastic to remain a

cheaper source of raw material

compared to recycled plastic

Identify and encourage regional bodies

to remove perverse incentives allowing

new plastic to remain a cheaper source

of raw material compared to recycled

plastic

Working with the World Trade

Organisation and other relevant bodies

identify sources of perverse incentives

and establish alternative ways to

enable materials containing recycled

plastic to be recognized in the global

product classification

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

17

Area Barrier National Regional International

Technological Insufficient use of recycled

materials in products in part due to

insufficient involvement of industry

in design, production and after-use

systems and limited capacities in

public authorities

Identify technological needs to

increase reuse, for example by

recycling required components

to enable this, identify design

products for reuse and improve

the infrastructure required

(identification, collection,

sorting, dismantling, etc.)

Establish funds for technology transfer

in the design and use of recycled plastic

materials

Establish funds for technology transfer

in the design and use of recycled plastic materials

Fragmented and low spread of

innovative technological

infrastructure, especially in rural

areas, for waste management and

recycling, dealing with alternative

materials, retention of microplastics

in waste water treatment and sludge

and monitoring and diagnostic

technologies to enable national

bodies to evaluate performance

environmental standards

Improve technology uptake in

local areas of infrastructure

including the collection,

transport, storage, sorting and

disposal services with the aim of

diverting waste from the oceans

and preventing leakage in all

lifecycle components.

Improve sorting services to meet

requirements of domestic and

international recycling industry

(where exported), make more

plastic types recyclable, meet

landfill reduction targets.

Improve technology transfer across the

region to support better infrastructure

including the collection, transport,

storage, sorting and disposal services

with the aim of diverting waste from

the oceans and preventing leakage in

all lifecycle components.

Encourage an open data and

technology approach to waste and

plastic infrastructure, use and design

Absence of a coordinated

development and adoption of

labelling standards for reuse and

recyclability of products

Establish national guidelines and

coordination for the

development and adoption of

labelling standards for reuse and

recyclability of products

Encourage at the regional level, a

coordinated development and adoption

of labelling standards for reuse and

recyclability of products

Encourage globally, the coordinated

development and adoption of labelling

standards for reuse and recyclability of products

Information Lack of research and harmonized,

monitoring methodologies and data

on the sources, flows and extent of

plastics and microplastics in the

marine environment, their impacts

on human health, food chains and

ecosystems and associated costs

Undertake analyses of the

sources, flows and extent of

plastics and microplastics in the

national marine environment,

their impacts on human health,

food chains and ecosystems and

associated costs

Co-operate in regional research and

innovation programmes on research

and innovation e.g. European Union’s

Horizon 2020 research and innovation

programme funding work on marine

litter; Secretariat of the Pacific

Regional Environment Programme

developing regional projects to

improve solid waste management in the

Pacific islands; UNEP - Global

Partnership on Marine Litter in the

North-West Pacific, the Wider

Caribbean, Mediterranean and the

Pacific regions, to strengthen inter-

regional and regional co-operation and

awareness raising efforts

Establish global, international research

programmes on the sources and flows

of plastics in the environment and their

impacts on human health, food chains and ecosystems

UNEP/AHEG/2018/2/2

18

Area Barrier National Regional International

Lack of global and national

reporting standards on the

production, consumption, use, end-

of-life/final treatment and trade of

plastic that will eventually become

waste, including if traded waste is

mismanaged, by going to landfill

rather than licensed facilities

Participate in regional and

global activities on reporting

standards for production,

consumption, use, end-of-

life/final treatment and trade of

plastic going to waste

Participate in processes to set

global standards for waste

stream definitions, criteria and

labeling to assist in purifying

waste streams to increase their

value.

Participate in processes to

improve classification of

hazardous components of plastic

production and treatment under

national and international

agreements such as the Basel,

Stockholm and Rotterdam

Conventions.

Enhance support for research

into secondary and tertiary

recycling with a view to

establishing national (and

global) reporting standards

Establish harmonized reporting

standards within existing regional

agreements on production,

consumption, use, end-of-life/final

treatment and trade of plastic that will

eventually become waste, including if

traded waste is mismanaged, by going

to landfill rather than licensed facilities

See under Option 3

Lack of transparent, inclusive

decision-making and public

awareness preventing a broader

discussion on cultural barriers,

responsibilities, risks and types of

behavioural changes and voluntary

schemes that society is willing to

undertake

Encourage dialogue to put in

place non-binding, voluntary

measures to supplement

legislative measures. For

example, voluntary nurdle

management, phasing out of

microbeads in cosmetics and

launch of voluntary certification

and labelling schemes.

Public campaigns on links

between plastic pollution to air

and water quality standards,

particularly primary

microplastics, additives,

chemicals used for recycling,

release of toxins from

incinerators.

Undertake regional outreach and public

participation programmes aligned with

monitoring and information

requirements of existing agreements

Continue to support global efforts such

as CleanSeas, Global Programme on

Marine Litter and other public engagement activities